17:00:07 <gouthamr> #startmeeting tc
17:00:07 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Tue Jul  8 17:00:07 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is gouthamr. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:07 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
17:00:07 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
17:00:16 <gouthamr> Welcome to the weekly meeting of the OpenStack Technical Committee. A reminder that this meeting is held under the OpenInfra Code of Conduct available at https://openinfra.dev/legal/code-of-conduct.
17:00:20 <gouthamr> Today's meeting agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee
17:00:24 <gouthamr> #topic Roll Call
17:00:32 <spotz[m]> o/
17:00:36 <gtema> o/
17:00:48 <gmaan> o/
17:01:00 <bauzas> o/
17:01:38 <frickler> \o
17:02:41 <mnasiadka> o/
17:03:04 <gouthamr> courtesy-ping: noonedeadpunk, cardoe
17:03:38 <noonedeadpunk> o/
17:03:40 <noonedeadpunk> sorry
17:03:54 <cardoe> Sorry. I’m getting to my computer. I’m on mobile.
17:04:02 <gouthamr> no problem, hello everyone
17:04:07 <gouthamr> thanks for joining, lets get started
17:04:14 <gouthamr> #topic Last Week's AIs
17:04:49 <gouthamr> bauzas: we took one on the eventlet timelines change on gerrit
17:04:57 <bauzas> thanks
17:05:03 <gouthamr> i.e., to follow up on the comments so far
17:05:06 <bauzas> sorry had no time to update it
17:05:14 <bauzas> anything to summarize ?
17:05:48 <gouthamr> nope, i think we were trending towards a consensus on the proposal.. there are a few comments to clarify that
17:05:55 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/952903 (Make Eventlet removal deadlines more acceptable for operators)
17:06:37 <bauzas> okay, I'll try to update it this week
17:06:56 <gouthamr> thanks, next up was pbr..
17:07:11 <gouthamr> i did see some changes up to fix the broken gate
17:07:28 <gouthamr> and start the pkg_resources removal
17:07:31 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22pkg_resources-removal%22
17:07:53 <gouthamr> thanks stephenfin \o/
17:08:44 <gouthamr> we took an AI to cleanup mentions of the CLA
17:08:54 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/953843 (Remove mentions to CLA in licensing guide)
17:08:58 <gouthamr> this was merged yesterday
17:09:17 <gouthamr> there are still some mentions in project specific contributor documentation
17:09:52 <gouthamr> i'll send a note to project teams to clean that up
17:10:18 <gouthamr> the last AI i see is the TC meet-and-greet session at the Summit
17:10:27 <gouthamr> spotz[m]: was this submitted? will you be leading it?
17:11:09 <spotz[m]> I haven’t yet but will
17:11:31 <gouthamr> ack ty spotz[m]
17:11:39 * spotz[m] uploaded an audio file: (32KiB) < https://matrix.org/oftc/media/v1/media/download/ARvCChTu9DoS1D8sq9-Af1AB40TseHVd8cyCDkBfPTo4mUUB2zq6i5f1-4w7JHa1fA7grDXZUDaYJ7vK2ka3lpJCeYMx6XBAAG1hdHJpeC5vcmcvdVd5Z1BhRkRpSVJra2tkWlVXT2dwY1dq >
17:11:58 <gouthamr> a cryptic voice note? :D
17:12:11 <gouthamr> a reminder for other folks here considering a forum session or project update session for the summit, that the deadline is today
17:12:20 <spotz[m]> Me playing with app
17:12:50 <gouthamr> that's all the AIs i see, was  anyone working on anything else?
17:14:33 <gouthamr> #topic A check on gate health
17:14:46 <gouthamr> any gate updates this week?
17:15:42 <clarkb> there were a few more multinode hiccups related to zuul-launcher providing mixed cloud nodesets. Several bugs around that have been fixed. Hopefully it doesn't happen anymore
17:16:22 <mnasiadka> And hopefully CentOS 10 Stream and Rocky Linux 10 nodes should be available this week, there's a light in the tunnel ;-)
17:16:31 <noonedeadpunk> I was just about to ask about this ^
17:16:45 <fungi> also debian-trixie, probably
17:17:28 <noonedeadpunk> that would be also really nice to have once eventlet not really a blocker
17:18:05 <gouthamr> ++
17:19:21 <gouthamr> i'd like not to jinx the gate bang in the middle of the cycle, but this all sounds like good news
17:19:35 <gouthamr> anything else for $topic?
17:20:08 <bauzas> hmmm
17:20:18 <bauzas> I'll be at the Summit, got green light
17:20:34 <noonedeadpunk> \o/
17:20:38 <bauzas> but in case we want to run a session like meet-and-greet with ops, sure I can help
17:20:47 <bauzas> I'm not having any Forum session
17:20:55 <fungi> or jetlag ;)
17:21:13 <gouthamr> :P
17:21:15 <fungi> (envious)
17:21:19 <gouthamr> #topic TC Tracker
17:21:22 <noonedeadpunk> oh, I might have one for you bauzas :p
17:21:54 <gouthamr> we have some open patches that could use more reviews:
17:22:01 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/governance+status:open
17:25:53 <gouthamr> elod proposed the retirement of Monasca, and it looks like we need a few more things per the retirement process
17:25:58 <gouthamr> #link  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/953671
17:27:20 <gmaan> yeah, it is already inactive since many cycle
17:27:25 <gouthamr> i dont know if the PTL would object to this..
17:27:33 <gouthamr> there's been no activity in the project itself
17:27:35 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/q/project:%5Eopenstack/monasca-.*
17:27:55 <gmaan> I will say keep it inactive and this election we will have more clarity if anyone step up
17:28:29 <gmaan> if any volunteer then we can have question for them about plan as it has been inactive for many cycle
17:28:33 <gouthamr> ack, feels like users/operators are keeping it alive
17:29:12 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22upgrade_monasca%22
17:29:23 <gouthamr> ^ these are the last tangible changes
17:30:42 <gouthamr> that sounds fine gmaan, but, even if the PTL re-nominates themselves, it looks like this is in "maintenance mode" of sorts
17:31:17 <gouthamr> if something major breaks in the dependencies (e.g.; eventlet), this could fall apart
17:31:38 <gmaan> sure but as we do not have separate status like 'maintenance mode' for projects either it should be active as per governance requirement or inactive or retire
17:31:48 <gouthamr> yeah
17:32:19 <gmaan> and the requirement we have to keep it active is not so much, it is similar to any 'maintenance mode' software like many projects are in same situation
17:32:44 <gmaan> current maintainers are not marking it active if it is so we do not know the actual situation
17:33:24 <gmaan> as per process, it should be retire by now but we do not need to be pro-active for retirement and can give time if maintainers need
17:33:54 * gouthamr copies hasan acar and thuvh to the change
17:34:17 <gouthamr> maybe we can use the change to discuss their plans if any, and offer advice if they have questions
17:34:52 <gmaan> yeah, we did in past and PTL agree to the plan but things got disappear
17:36:03 <gouthamr> true
17:36:05 <gmaan> I am not against of starting retirement or at least putting it in ML but as it is already marked inactive we know the situation.
17:36:25 <gouthamr> ack, if there's no response on the change, we can hit the ML
17:36:26 <gmaan> it is matter of whether we want to give more time to them.
17:36:30 <gmaan> ++
17:36:43 <gouthamr> #topic Open Discussion
17:36:44 <fungi> and will be excluded from the coordinated release, removed from overview diagrams of the software, et cetera
17:36:53 <gouthamr> ^ after retirement?
17:37:00 <frickler> usually inactive is meant to only last one cycle, we are at how many now, 3?
17:37:06 <gmaan> it is already excluded from release for many cycles
17:37:07 <gouthamr> they're not a part of the release
17:37:10 <fungi> no, currently. inactive deliverables are not included in the coordinated release
17:37:25 <fungi> and we typically don't include them on the software map and such
17:37:32 <gouthamr> ah, i didn't know that
17:37:43 <gmaan> frickler: true, we also provided extension to inactive phase
17:37:56 <gouthamr> there's no warning on the documentation either correct? a la retired projects?
17:38:11 <gmaan> #link https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/emerging-technology-and-inactive-projects.html#current-inactive-projects
17:38:51 <frickler> so 4 cycles now
17:39:04 <gmaan> yeah, no warning for inactive projects. I remember artem or someone mentioned about in past PTG about showing some warning or status for inactive projects more wider than just TC doc
17:39:18 <fungi> good point about docs, we make it look more active by continuing to publish a https://docs.openstack.org/monasca-api/latest/ with a banner stating "This release is under development. The current supported release is 2025.1."
17:39:37 <gmaan> and that can be good idea to inactive status on doc but we need to implement it
17:39:51 <fungi> (neither of those sentences being true wrt monasca)
17:39:55 <gmaan> yeah
17:39:56 <noonedeadpunk> I think this is assigned to me right now
17:40:04 <noonedeadpunk> and I can't say I had any progress :(
17:40:04 <gmaan> noonedeadpunk: ++
17:40:35 <mnasiadka> Seems I'm sort of done with centos/rocky10 - so I can try to help with that if needed
17:42:03 <gouthamr> that would be super helpful.. its monasca now, but we could use a template/documentation note to alert users like we have for retired projects for any other inactive projects in the future
17:43:08 <gmaan> yeah, basically we need to define what we could show in the /latest or README.rst which is more of temporary status and ask for help
17:43:31 <gmaan> that should not sounds like this project is retired or cannot be active/ready to use again
17:44:04 <fungi> this ties in really nicely with some of the things the foundation community managers have been discussing recently too
17:44:26 <fungi> trying to brainstorm ways to better communicate to the right people when projects need help
17:44:46 <gmaan> mnasiadka: thanks for help, once you have something up. I will be happy to review.
17:45:09 <fungi> (historically we've failed at that over and over, with at least half a dozen different solutions tried)
17:46:03 <gmaan> IMO, this is little different situation. I will say "if you are using/interested in this project then it need help otherwise maybe retiring in future"
17:46:19 <mnasiadka> fungi: I'd be happy to know which solutions failed before I try them again :)
17:46:30 <gmaan> and projects we cannot effort to go away like QA, keystone etc can be projected as "projects need help"
17:47:11 <fungi> mnasiadka: off the top of my head, the project managers working group, the architects working group, the hidden influencers working group, the help wanted list, upstream investment opportunities...
17:47:41 <fungi> keep in mind this is a history of struggles and attempted solutions stretching back 15 years
17:48:00 <spotz[m]> What about a header on the doc itself aka larger font saying the last release
17:49:34 <gouthamr> yeah, we call that header a "badge" in the openstack manuals repo
17:49:57 <gouthamr> and there's a "deprecated" badge template too
17:50:02 <gouthamr> #link https://opendev.org/openstack/openstack-manuals/src/branch/master/www/templates/deprecated_badge.tmpl
17:51:01 <gouthamr> so for an inactive project, we could properly reflect the last (real) release similarly
17:51:31 <gouthamr> and probably add a similar banner asking for help/new maintainers
17:54:34 <mnasiadka> well, isn't what we all need are some updates to www-generator.py pointing out such projects?
17:55:44 <gouthamr> yes
17:56:01 <gouthamr> currently that has the logic for RETIRED_REPOS, so we should make it look at inactive ones too
17:56:29 <gouthamr> might have to yank the RST list out of the https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/emerging-technology-and-inactive-projects.html#current-inactive-projects page and make it a yaml
17:56:59 <mnasiadka> Nice, I feared my approach is too naive - but I can work on this pointer :)
17:57:24 <gouthamr> thank you mnasiadka
17:57:43 <gouthamr> alright, three minutes left, anything else for the minutes?
17:57:48 <spotz[m]> Mine was more naive:)
17:59:02 <gouthamr> fungi clarkb: will this ever go away? https://review.opendev.org/static/cla.html
17:59:22 <fungi> yes
17:59:50 <fungi> it's on my near-term priority list once we rip out cla enforcement from the non-openinfra project acls in opendev
17:59:59 <gouthamr> i still see all three agreements under https://review.opendev.org/settings/new-agreement
17:59:59 <gouthamr> i dont know if there's a use case for any of these now that we don't require it
18:00:01 <gouthamr> ah
18:00:08 <gouthamr> i see
18:00:09 <fungi> there are not, no
18:00:15 <fungi> all of those will go away
18:00:30 <gouthamr> thanks for confirming!
18:01:07 <gouthamr> spotz[m]: all the new contributor workshop/presentation material will need slight tweaking (for the better) to remove CLA stuff :)
18:01:09 <clarkb> we have a handful of gerrit image rebuild reasons piling up
18:01:24 <clarkb> the updates tothe zuul status page, cleaning up cla stuff, moving to quay
18:01:32 <gouthamr> nice
18:01:36 <clarkb> we may be able to bundle them all together and roll that out at once. I'll bring it up in our meeting later today
18:01:43 <gouthamr> thanks clarkb
18:01:49 <gouthamr> alright, we've passed the hour.. thank you all for attending
18:01:53 <spotz[m]> I’ll take a look at that as I actually was showing it to someone today
18:01:59 <spotz[m]> Thanks all
18:02:00 <gouthamr> ty spotz[m]
18:02:03 <gouthamr> #endmeeting